Pentax Full Frame DSLR (Well, sort of...)

hoanpham · 01-31-2011, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by 721

The lens alone would cost me quite a bit more than my whole A*85+1Ds combo, even when buying a used one.

Hey, awesome 721.
Thanks for sharing. I am wandering around after having seen 5DII and D700 low light performance and found the light at last. I have long time consider jump ship, waiting 7+ years before my k20.

Just curious, how much would you charge for modifying a such body?

721 · 02-01-2011, 11:40 AM

Well... in the very worst case, it might cost your camera. Or whatever Canon charges to fix it.

Not sure I would be comfortable with butchering around in somebody else's 2000€ worth of camera. When being held liable in case something goes wrong I would probably have to charge so much that it would not be worth it any more. Not that I expect something to go wrong, but as you maybe can imagine, I have not done this many times yet and the whole process of modification is still in its infancy. Also, I have not modified a 5D or 5DII yet whose mirror boxes differ slightly from the 1Ds one, so I would have to do some of this based on assumptions instead of actual knowledge and experience.
When doing it on your risk, then maybe we can work something out. You can PM me if you are interested.

But then again, when it is just and only about low light for you, then the K5 might be a better choice for your Pentax lenses than the 5DII which is already more than two years old. From what I have seen you would probably have to wait for the 5DIII for a significant improvement over the K5.

Oh, and just in order to prevent confusion: This works with Canons only. Nikon's register distance is too long for Pentax lenses to reach infinity.

**Kerrowdown** · 02-01-2011, 03:03 PM

My hats off to a man who enters the inner workings of his camera with a Dremel.

krypticide · 02-01-2011, 05:05 PM

Love the 3D effect of FF. That's the only reason I would be interested in a FF camera. That, and maybe better DR.

Steve Beswick · 02-02-2011, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by kerrowdown

My hats off to a man who enters the inner workings of his camera with a Dremel.

I bet it's easier when it says Canon on it.

721 · 02-02-2011, 11:50 AM

Haha, true enough!

v5planet · 02-02-2011, 01:27 PM

This is...really awesome. The picture of the motorcycle is amazing. Glad to see you got what you were looking for out of this project! (Though I have to wonder, how are you doing for sensor dust, after the Dremel adventure? :P )

dlacouture · 02-02-2011, 03:23 PM

Whoah, that's some corones you have here...

I've went so far as to add some solder to the A pin of the mount, but to go at my camera with a dremel??? No way!!!

Regarding the FF render, I've started to play with Brenizer's method, and now I'd be hard-pressed to justify buying a FF (not that I wouldn't want one!).
You only need 3 pics to have a FF equivalent...

Take the following :

Assembled from 3 pics taken with a FA50/1.4, the end result (Fov- and Dof-wise) is equivalent to a 47mm f/1.3 on a FF camera...
Not for all kind of pics, but quite good for what I do...

721 · 02-03-2011, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by v5planet

This is...really awesome. The picture of the motorcycle is amazing. Glad to see you got what you were looking for out of this project! (Though I have to wonder, how are you doing for sensor dust, after the Dremel adventure? :P )

I have not used the camera for very long before modifying it, so take it with a grain of salt, but I do not think that the sensor collects considerably more dust than before. Sealing the mirror box before dremeling it was without any doubt a good idea, even though I was not able to keep the dust out entirely.
True, there is always quite a bit more dust on there than on my K7 sensor, but considering that the 1Ds sensor is known to be a dust magnet and does not have any cleaning mechanism, I would say that is nothing out of the ordinary. And as I mostly shoot it at wide apertures, that does not bother me much anyways.

Originally posted by dlacouture

Whoah, that's some corones you have here...

I've went so far as to add some solder to the A pin of the mount, but to go at my camera with a dremel??? No way!!!

Regarding the FF render, I've started to play with Brenizer's method, and now I'd be hard-pressed to justify buying a FF (not that I wouldn't want one!).
You only need 3 pics to have a FF equivalent...

Take the following :

Assembled from 3 pics taken with a FA50/1.4, the end result (Fov- and Dof-wise) is equivalent to a 47mm f/1.3 on a FF camera...
Not for all kind of pics, but quite good for what I do...

Yeah, I had also experimented with that and found it to work quite well with individual shots of static subjects, but all in all I did not really get the hang of it. I find it rather difficult to compose pictures when only being able to see a small part of them all the time. And having to process the shots before being able to judge how they turned out was not exactly convincing to me either.

Nevertheless, maybe I will give this technique another try at some point. Considering what can be done with comparably little effort when combined with 135 format FOV... *drool*

dlacouture · 02-03-2011, 11:53 AM

Mmmmh, I don't know if the results would be that different from APS-C, as the lenses are the same... You'll need less shots to obtain the same FoV than with an APS-C, but that's all, I think...

So indeed you could use a 85/1.4 on the scene I posted with only three shots, instead of the 8 or 9 APS-C would require (same as I needed 3 shots with the FA50 to obtain its FF equivalent).
But the end results will be the same (except that the subject would be all over the place with the APS-C!!!).

721 · 02-03-2011, 02:31 PM

Indeed, the result will be the same. But the effort is less with FF.

Although, once one is at it, it is probably not such a big deal to take 8 or 9 pictures instead of three, so I guess you are right, FF is not really a big advantage here.

dlacouture · 02-03-2011, 03:37 PM

Well, if you have a moving subject, it is...

Anyway, I'm quite impatient to see the abilities of the next FF sensors...

**rparmar** · 02-03-2011, 05:50 PM

Wow, dremel the camera! LOLS. Thanks for sharing!

Anyone else doing this here's a tip: suspend the camera upside down and work from underneath. Let gravity do the work of getting rid of excess particles.

dlacouture · 02-04-2011, 01:02 AM

And use a vacuum cleaner all the time!!!

By the way, this kind of reminds me about the wedding photog that tosses his 5DmkII whirling in the air to a good 5m height to get interesting group portraits...

**Digitalis** · 02-04-2011, 03:07 AM

impressive, I have considered doing this to my 1DSMKIII due to the fact that I am intending on buying a pentax 645D later this year and I will most likely never need to use it again, because I already use my nikon D3s for wildlife and I am quite happy with the results.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
No Pentax Full Frame DSLR, What to Do Now Then?	RiceHigh	Pentax DSLR Discussion	95	07-19-2014 10:57 AM
Why doesn't Pentax develop full frame DSLR?	fast_boat	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	12-11-2008 08:46 PM
Official: New DSLR Body is Coming; Full Frame Model is Under Planning!	RiceHigh	Pentax News and Rumors	78	08-04-2008 06:18 PM
Full Frame Pentax DSLR	Wheatfield	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	07-21-2008 06:43 PM
So It's True....a Full-Frame 'Professional' Samsung Dslr Coming !!!!	Confused	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	05-02-2008 04:12 PM

01-31-2011, 06:52 AM	#31
hoanpham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Strand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,366	Originally posted by 721 The lens alone would cost me quite a bit more than my whole A*85+1Ds combo, even when buying a used one. Hey, awesome 721. Thanks for sharing. I am wandering around after having seen 5DII and D700 low light performance and found the light at last. I have long time consider jump ship, waiting 7+ years before my k20. Just curious, how much would you charge for modifying a such body?

02-01-2011, 11:40 AM	#32
721 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 56 Original Poster	Well... in the very worst case, it might cost your camera. Or whatever Canon charges to fix it. Not sure I would be comfortable with butchering around in somebody else's 2000€ worth of camera. When being held liable in case something goes wrong I would probably have to charge so much that it would not be worth it any more. Not that I expect something to go wrong, but as you maybe can imagine, I have not done this many times yet and the whole process of modification is still in its infancy. Also, I have not modified a 5D or 5DII yet whose mirror boxes differ slightly from the 1Ds one, so I would have to do some of this based on assumptions instead of actual knowledge and experience. When doing it on your risk, then maybe we can work something out. You can PM me if you are interested. But then again, when it is just and only about low light for you, then the K5 might be a better choice for your Pentax lenses than the 5DII which is already more than two years old. From what I have seen you would probably have to wait for the 5DIII for a significant improvement over the K5. Oh, and just in order to prevent confusion: This works with Canons only. Nikon's register distance is too long for Pentax lenses to reach infinity.

02-01-2011, 03:03 PM	#33
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,819	My hats off to a man who enters the inner workings of his camera with a Dremel.

02-01-2011, 05:05 PM	#34
krypticide Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079	Love the 3D effect of FF. That's the only reason I would be interested in a FF camera. That, and maybe better DR.

02-02-2011, 12:28 AM	#35
Steve Beswick Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Ontario, California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,736	Originally posted by kerrowdown My hats off to a man who enters the inner workings of his camera with a Dremel. I bet it's easier when it says Canon on it.

02-02-2011, 11:50 AM	#36
721 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 56 Original Poster	Haha, true enough!

02-02-2011, 01:27 PM	#37
v5planet Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Seattle Photos: Albums Posts: 1,915	This is...really awesome. The picture of the motorcycle is amazing. Glad to see you got what you were looking for out of this project! (Though I have to wonder, how are you doing for sensor dust, after the Dremel adventure? :P )

02-02-2011, 03:23 PM	#38
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	Whoah, that's some corones you have here... I've went so far as to add some solder to the A pin of the mount, but to go at my camera with a dremel??? No way!!! Regarding the FF render, I've started to play with Brenizer's method, and now I'd be hard-pressed to justify buying a FF (not that I wouldn't want one!). You only need 3 pics to have a FF equivalent... Take the following : Assembled from 3 pics taken with a FA50/1.4, the end result (Fov- and Dof-wise) is equivalent to a 47mm f/1.3 on a FF camera... Not for all kind of pics, but quite good for what I do...

02-03-2011, 09:32 AM	#39
721 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 56 Original Poster	Originally posted by v5planet This is...really awesome. The picture of the motorcycle is amazing. Glad to see you got what you were looking for out of this project! (Though I have to wonder, how are you doing for sensor dust, after the Dremel adventure? :P ) I have not used the camera for very long before modifying it, so take it with a grain of salt, but I do not think that the sensor collects considerably more dust than before. Sealing the mirror box before dremeling it was without any doubt a good idea, even though I was not able to keep the dust out entirely. True, there is always quite a bit more dust on there than on my K7 sensor, but considering that the 1Ds sensor is known to be a dust magnet and does not have any cleaning mechanism, I would say that is nothing out of the ordinary. And as I mostly shoot it at wide apertures, that does not bother me much anyways. Originally posted by dlacouture Whoah, that's some corones you have here... I've went so far as to add some solder to the A pin of the mount, but to go at my camera with a dremel??? No way!!! Regarding the FF render, I've started to play with Brenizer's method, and now I'd be hard-pressed to justify buying a FF (not that I wouldn't want one!). You only need 3 pics to have a FF equivalent... Take the following : Assembled from 3 pics taken with a FA50/1.4, the end result (Fov- and Dof-wise) is equivalent to a 47mm f/1.3 on a FF camera... Not for all kind of pics, but quite good for what I do... Yeah, I had also experimented with that and found it to work quite well with individual shots of static subjects, but all in all I did not really get the hang of it. I find it rather difficult to compose pictures when only being able to see a small part of them all the time. And having to process the shots before being able to judge how they turned out was not exactly convincing to me either. Nevertheless, maybe I will give this technique another try at some point. Considering what can be done with comparably little effort when combined with 135 format FOV... drool

02-03-2011, 11:53 AM	#40
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	Mmmmh, I don't know if the results would be that different from APS-C, as the lenses are the same... You'll need less shots to obtain the same FoV than with an APS-C, but that's all, I think... So indeed you could use a 85/1.4 on the scene I posted with only three shots, instead of the 8 or 9 APS-C would require (same as I needed 3 shots with the FA50 to obtain its FF equivalent). But the end results will be the same (except that the subject would be all over the place with the APS-C!!!).

02-03-2011, 02:31 PM	#41
721 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 56 Original Poster	Indeed, the result will be the same. But the effort is less with FF. Although, once one is at it, it is probably not such a big deal to take 8 or 9 pictures instead of three, so I guess you are right, FF is not really a big advantage here.

02-03-2011, 03:37 PM	#42
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	Well, if you have a moving subject, it is... Anyway, I'm quite impatient to see the abilities of the next FF sensors...

02-03-2011, 05:50 PM	#43
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Wow, dremel the camera! LOLS. Thanks for sharing! Anyone else doing this here's a tip: suspend the camera upside down and work from underneath. Let gravity do the work of getting rid of excess particles.

02-04-2011, 01:02 AM	#44
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	And use a vacuum cleaner all the time!!! By the way, this kind of reminds me about the wedding photog that tosses his 5DmkII whirling in the air to a good 5m height to get interesting group portraits...

02-04-2011, 03:07 AM	#45
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	impressive, I have considered doing this to my 1DSMKIII due to the fact that I am intending on buying a pentax 645D later this year and I will most likely never need to use it again, because I already use my nikon D3s for wildlife and I am quite happy with the results.